The Madras High Court has upheld an order directing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Tamil Nadu, to disclose records of a corruption-related enquiry to retired Director General of Police S.R. Jangid, IPS. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar dismissed the State government's writ petition, holding that the entire enquiry record could not be withheld merely by invoking confidentiality and exemptions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The Court maintained the direction to provide the requested documents while masking the names and particulars of other officers, subject to applicable statutory exemptions and the procedure prescribed for third-party information.
Background
Jangid filed an RTI application on January 21, 2021, seeking records relating to Detailed Enquiry No. 48/2013/PUB/HQ conducted by the DVAC. His request included enquiry reports dated December 30, 2013, and August 6, 2015, queries raised by the government, statements recorded by the enquiry officer and documents collected during the investigation.
The Public Information Officer rejected the application on February 18, 2021, citing Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, which protects certain information where disclosure could endanger a person's life or physical safety or reveal a confidential source assisting law enforcement. After the first appeal was also rejected, Jangid approached the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission.
On May 30, 2024, the Commission directed the authorities to provide the requested information within 45 days, with the names and other particulars of the concerned officers masked. The State subsequently challenged this direction before the High Court.
The Court examined whether the DVAC's exemption under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act could justify withholding the records. It held that the exemption could not operate as a complete bar because the proviso preserves access to information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
Justice Chandangoudar also found that the State had not produced specific material demonstrating that disclosure would endanger witnesses or reveal confidential sources in the manner protected by Section 8(1)(g). The Court clarified that Section 11, which prescribes a procedure for certain third-party disclosures, does not independently create an exemption from disclosure.
The judgment explained the importance of separating protected information from the rest of a document:
"Section 10 of the RTI Act provides the appropriate mechanism in such cases. Where only a part of a document is exempt from disclosure, that portion can be severed and the remaining portion furnished, provided the remaining information can reasonably be disclosed. Thus, the entire enquiry file cannot be withheld merely because some portions may contain exempt information."
The Court further held that internal confidentiality requirements under the DVAC Manual and the pendency of separate civil proceedings could not, by themselves, justify denying the RTI request.
The Madras High Court confirmed the Information Commission's order dated May 30, 2024, and dismissed the State's writ petition. It directed that the requested enquiry records be furnished within the time stipulated in the Commission's order, with the names and particulars of other officers masked.
Where Section 11 applied, the prescribed procedure had to be followed without withholding the remaining disclosable information.
No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details
- Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu State Information Commission & S.R. Jangid
- Case Number: W.P. No. 22237 of 2024; W.M.P. No. 24215 of 2024
- Judge: Justice Hemant Chandangoudar
- Decision Date: October 9, 2026
